John Prescott: I have been asked to reply. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is on an official visit meeting the Heads of Government in Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia. While away, my right hon. Friend has supported all our athletes competing at the Commonwealth games. I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate all of them on their success. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] My right hon. Friend has addressed the Australian Parliament and today has participated in a climate change conference in New Zealand. In Indonesia, he will meet the president and Islamic leaders.

Mark Durkan: I will not take too much of the House's precious time today to dwell on disagreement about a public inquiry. However, the Minister has enjoined Members to take time to analyse the report in full before forming our own opinions. Will he assure us that if we do so, and if we approach him on a cross-party basis—he is aware of the nature of the cross-party campaign to date—will he be receptive to those reflections, particularly where they are informed by the views of the families?

Martin Linton: I am sorry, but this is a one-hour debate. I consider myself lucky to have caught your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to make my points.
	The argument put by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the passport is not really compulsory has been widely mocked by people on the other side of the argument, but they must address the argument that if passports are compulsory they are surely just as objectionable as ID cards. The ID card is no more than a passport to public services. It is a different form of passport, to be used in a different context. When someone wishes to obtain a benefit or open a bank account, they will not need to take their passport, which is a bulky document, because they will be able to use their ID card. It will work exactly the same as a passport does when crossing international borders. It will be a domestic passport and I do not understand why people object to one, but not the other.
	At the heart of this debate lies deep confusion about the words voluntary and compulsory. If people are prepared to go along with Lord Armstrong's approach and accept that the important aspect is not the card but the register, we can all find common ground on which to agree.

Tony McNulty: These amendments are all, in the main, fairly minor and technical. Some go to points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee; here, rather than elsewhere, we move from negative to affirmative procedure with some of the order-making powers, especially in amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Some dwell on—legalistic purists might demure at this—the issue of effluxion of time, which might be better put into English in the Bill, so it duly is, in amendment No. 15. Many of the other provisions simply repeat these technicalities or go to some of the consequences that should be reflected from the Equality Bill. I know that people always bristle and become deeply suspicious when a Minister contends that a series of amendments is minor and technical. They scurry off and read them in great detail, because they having the feeling that the Minister is trying to hide something. I can assure the House that in this instance all the amendments before us, which were agreed to by the other place, are entirely acceptable to the Government. In that spirit, I ask the House to accept the amendments.

Damian Green: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to speak principally to amendment (b), which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), but I also wish to comment on the arguments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
	As our amendment is careful modelled on amendment No. 6, which has been agreed between the two Front Benches in another place, I have high hopes that the Minister will accept it. He will agree that the argument over vouchers is a delicate one. I have been following his correspondence in various newspapers with those who are flatly against his scheme and his argument that it will not make much difference and will not be a voucher scheme. He has clearly failed to convince the hon. Member for Walthamstow, among others. I am sure that the House will be waiting to hear how he deals with that issue.
	Although I do not agree with all the arguments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, he raises valid points, particularly as regards people from Zimbabwe, who are in a very difficult situation. The Government, rightly, do not wish to return them to Zimbabwe even if they have failed in their application for asylum. That gives rise to practical problems as to how they are to continue living in a decent and civilised way in this country.
	One of the questions that the Government have not answered adequately concerns the cost of such a voucher scheme. They have tried voucher schemes before and scrapped them before. A previous Home Secretary conceded that the voucher scheme that operated previously was unworkable and unfair. Having come to that conclusion once, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why the current scheme is going to be workable and fair and, while he does so, what, in broad terms, he thinks that the costs will be.
	That question may be impossible to answer because the Government have no idea of how long many people will be forced to wait until they can be returned to their own country. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out, the phrase, "about to leave", is a term of art that appears to cover not just days or weeks but in some cases months and years. Clearly, a system designed to cope with the needs of those who may be here for a few weeks will not serve those who might be here for years. The hon. Member for Walthamstow and the Refugee Council have made that point, which is central to the argument.
	Nevertheless, I should make it clear that Conservative Members have no objection in principle to vouchers, provided that the system is workable and fair. However, we recognise the possibility of inefficiency and waste, which may lead to hardship for some vulnerable people. We have tabled amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 18 in the hope that it gives the Government a decent escape route, not least from the criticism that the Minister is receiving from Labour Members. I am sure that he sincerely believes that the voucher system will not cause the unfairness and hardship that some Labour Members claim, so the Government should, at the very least, enable Parliament to receive a full report on its working in three years.
	If the Minister will listen, I am about to praise him. A few moments ago, he made a sensible comment about parliamentary scrutiny and using the Bill to enhance Parliament's ability to revisit legislation that it has passed. He was right to say that the lack of that ability is a common failing of our legislation. That is why amendment (b) tries to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate whether the new system causes genuine hardship and to have the Government justify their actions if they need justification. The terms of the amendment allow that to happen earlier if there is an immediate crisis or if the Government want a convenient vehicle to enable them to change the policy.
	Even if the scheme proves perfectly practical and the Government want to continue with it, the requirement to report back on its day-to-day workings will act as a spur to Ministers to check what is happening. The Minister knows that many bodies that object to that sort of scheme concentrate precisely on which shops can take the vouchers and the range of goods to which they apply. The nitty-gritty, day-to-day details will make the difference in some cases between fairness and unfairness and hardship and lack of hardship.
	I agree with the Minister that reporting back on the scheme is important. I hope, therefore, that he will accept the amendment in the constructive spirit in which it is offered. The long-term solution is not to have a system that keeps thousands of people in limbo for years. Since that happy prospect is many years away, I commend amendment (b) to the House, as a modest improvement to managing the current failing system, and I hope that it will satisfy hon. Members from all sides of the debate.

Jim Knight: During Lords Committee, we were asked to consider whether any guidance that is published by the Secretary of State should be published "contemporaneously" with the issuing of it. We could not accept that wording, but could not argue with the principle. We believe that there should be a degree of consistency in the Bill and once we decided that it was right to publish such decisions as soon as practicable, we thought it sensible to apply it to any decisions made by the Secretary of State under this Bill. Therefore, this group of Government amendments adds various requirements that the Secretary of State should publish directions, guidance and lists that she may issue under this Bill as soon as reasonably practical after their issue.
	Amendment No. 38 to paragraph 16(1) of schedule 1 and the identical amendment No. 39 to paragraph 16(1) of schedule 2 are purely grammatical. They have no effect on the Bill's text other than to improve the grammar, and I am sure that all hon. Members will approve of that. Amendments Nos. 56 to 63 are minor amendments to schedule 11 and address two technical issues. The first three amendments of that group are small clarifications to three paragraphs in schedule 11 of minor and consequential amendments. They will ensure that there is consistency of application within the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, clarifying whether particular provisions apply to the 12-mile territorial waters around England and Wales.
	The remaining five amendments contain small consequential amendments in the schedule 11 paragraphs that make minor amendments to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in relation to the protection of limestone pavements. The National Assembly for Wales has relatively recently confirmed that it wishes to benefit from the existing alteration to subsection (1) of section 34 of the 1981 Act so that Wales will benefit equally from the enhanced protection for limestone pavements. The substituted subsection (1) will enable pavement to be more easily protected both in England and Wales.
	Amendment No. 28 is designed to reflect the fact that the new Inland Waterways Advisory Council will be an advisory rather than an executive non-departmental public body and ensure that it can be appropriately supported. The amendment substitutes wording customarily used to authorise Ministers to support advisory NDPBs.
	I commend this group of amendments to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 10 agreed to.

Jim Knight: The amendments do two important things. The first is a small facilitating measure that will benefit landowners and occupiers, especially by removing the implication that the power to denotify SSSI land should be available only if it was previously of special interest. In essence, and without detracting from the main purpose of the provision, it provides for a simple remedy for any landowner or occupier who discovers that a part of his land has been mistakenly included in the boundary of a SSSI, for example, because of a cartographical discrepancy between paper and digitised maps.
	The second amendment benefits the public interest. By the strong will of Parliament, shown in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the conservation bodies have been required to serve SSSI notifications on every owner or occupier of the land in question. Despite their best efforts, that can be a tall order, given the paucity of comprehensive sources of land tenure information. The amendment introduces a saving to ensure that, provided that all reasonable steps have been taken to discharge the notification duty, SSSIs, present or future, will not be rendered invalid by reason of it later being discovered that some relevant party's interests were not identified when the notification was served.
	Importantly, the provision protects any such missed party from any liability for things that happened before commencement, and they become fully liable as a notified owner or occupier only after they have come to light and the notification papers have been served on them by the relevant conservation body.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 26, Lords amendment No. 27 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	Amendment No. 20 removes—

Charles Clarke: To be candid, I find non-partisanship on the issue difficult. However, in its spirit, I pay genuine tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who has campaigned for identity cards for many years since his election in 1997. It has not been an easy pitch on which to bat but he has done it exceptionally well and made his case powerfully. I am glad that, today, Parliament has paid tribute to his work. Earlier, he drew attention to the critical importance of the national identity register. Lord Armstrong's acknowledgement of that has enabled us to support the amendment from the other place. The integrity of the national identity register has been the central point that enables us to accept Lord Armstrong's amendment.
	Secondly, the amendment removes from the scope of any opt-out, designated documents other than the passport. The new amendment removes any opt-out from the resident's permit, which specifies the right of third country nationals to reside in this country and the terms and conditions that they must honour. I noted from the earlier response of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) that he accepted the logic of that change

Simon Hughes: I was warming to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) until his last couple of phrases. However, I assure him that those of us who oppose the proposal are not saying that people should join us because it is a Liberal Democrat vote. The vote is against the principle so I hope that not only the hon. Gentleman realises what is going on, but that colleagues from all parties who have stayed true to their principles will continue to maintain their position.
	The argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) is flawed in one obvious respect. He says that we will be able to see how people respond when the Bill is passed. It is exactly because the Bill has been amended in this form by the Lords that we shall not be able to see people's responses so clearly. Until today, we were fighting the argument that there could be a choice. He and his Government are trying to ensure that there will be no choice.
	I want to deal with the Home Secretary's repeated constitutional point. Today, he again lamented the fact that the House of Lords had stood so firm for so long. If there had been a clear Government manifesto commitment, the arguments about how the second non-elected Chamber should respond might have been different. But the Government manifesto was at least ambiguous, and many of us believe that their subsequent arguments were the opposite of their manifesto commitment. The other part of Parliament is thus absolutely within its rights to stand up to a Government who claim an unjustified authority.
	The Home Secretary cannot deploy the argument against the lords because they are hereditary, bishops or appointed. The current House of Lords was created by the Labour Government. It has been made up in its current form because of the policies of the Prime Minister and the Labour Government. It is no good their complaining that the lords are not doing what they are meant to do; the Government put them there, some possibly, as we have heard recently, in unacceptable ways.
	Colleagues in our party argued the case consistently in the other place. It is a great regret to me and many people outside this place that Conservative and Cross-Bench colleagues and Labour Back Benchers did not stay with my colleagues and take the Government to the wire. It would have been a perfectly justified constitutional challenge and a reasonable defeat of the Government, and would have resulted in a much better Bill.
	If the Home Secretary thinks this is the end of the matter, he is wrong. Many of us have made it absolutely clear that we will do everything in our power, personally and on behalf of other people, never to have identity cards or to be on a national identity register. I encourage everybody listening and watching to renew their passports now so that they will not have to be subject to the ID card regime for the next 10 years. I hope that many will do so.
	The Liberal Democrats hope that the Government lose their majority—not just their moral majority but their majority support among the British public, which they lost a long time ago—but also their majority in the House of Commons. They won only 35 per cent. of the vote and were backed by only 20 per cent. of the British public, yet they have a majority in the House of Commons. When that majority goes too, one of the first things that my colleagues and I will insist on in the next Parliament is that the ID card legislation is reversed.
	We are happy to go to the country in defence of liberty, to oppose an increasingly authoritarian Government. That is true to our traditions, and the British public will respond far better to us than to the Bill, with its new powers of enforcement, even if there is a Labour majority for the proposal in the House of Commons tonight.

Richard Shepherd: Through certain of our laws, this country has defined its character, and there are some laws that are of particular importance. Through our common law and our statute law, we can trace a finger to show why we are an independent, free and liberated country. If there was a message that we sent around the world, it was the concept of our liberty. It was reiterated through the declaration of independence of the United States and the constitutions of Australia, Canada and New Zealand. That is the tradition of which we are part.
	Today we are faced with the final round of a Bill that restates who we are: we are the servants of the state if new the Labour Government prevail in the passage of the Bill. It looks a lost cause, but I believe profoundly that this nation is more vibrant and more lively and that it will in the end not tolerate this nonsense. If we look to the history of who we are and we stand firm by the belief in the individuality and autonomy of the citizen, we know that the measure gives unto the Government the central control of information through a register that may or may not be secure, and the information that we have had from people who understand these matters is that no system can render secure the information that is our personal data.
	On the proposition of the Government therefore, the House is now prepared to launch billions of pounds in an experiment that not only diminishes the people of this country, but beggars them in a sense: it beggars them in liberty, but it beggars them through taxation, too. For what purpose is this engineered? The rules of the game have changed, we are told. To what extent does that mean that we must surrender the first presumption of every citizen of these islands that we are free, independent and not the servants of the state?
	The House should go out with a ringing defiance of a majority predicated on party, because this is a measure that extends beyond the sense that we are loyal party men or women. We are representatives of something stronger, deeper, longer and more intense than anything that the Home Office now presents to us as the settled will of the new Labour Government. I agree with much of what has been said this evening: people will unpick and begin to understand about all those who will provide information to the Government, who say that they deserve to know all about us. What about the derelicts under the bridges beneath Waterloo? What about the old and confused? What about the mentally anxious?
	Those are the people who will be squeezed to try to remember who they are, but we will remember who we are. One day, this Government will experience the wrath and indignation of a country that understands that this is not a small social measure; it is in fact a declaration by Government that the centralised state is more important and greater than the sum of every individual free citizen of the country that we were sent to represent. We should oppose to the utmost and to the end this benighted and wrong Bill.

William McCrea: I have listened with interest to the remarks that have been made. At the beginning of the whole debate, the Home Secretary pointed out that the measure was essential in the fight against terrorism. Those who come from Northern Ireland certainly have a great interest in that, because we have been doing that for more than 30 years, particularly and personally. Many of our colleagues have suffered grievously because of that. However, at the time when the Home Secretary was presenting the measure as so essential in the fight against terrorism, we could not understand why the scheme was going to be voluntary and was going to come in in 2008. Now we hear the date of 2010.
	It is interesting to note that a Labour Member, speaking about how essential the measure was, said that it would aid the fight against crime, fraud and identity fraud, but seemingly someone can be a criminal or a fraudster, or be involved in the identity fraud game, up until 2010. As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, on the fight against crime or terrorism we believe that if something is essential, it is essential now. However, it seems that the measure is do so with something other than the fight against terrorism, and it is like Big Brother to desire to have all the details of the citizens of the United Kingdom. My colleagues and I will vote against the Lords amendments.